Closantel (Seponver dewormer?

[Stan Potratz]

Does anyone know why this is not available for US shepherds?

It is a narrow-spectrum dewormer in Aust. that appears to be useful tool in the struggles with barbers pole worms

Is it being considered for tests and ultimate release in the USA?

[Richard Ehrhardt]

Good question. It is a different class and mode of action than approved anthlemintics in USA so would be helpful in extending use of the ones that are working.

I will ask some parasitoligists.

[Muleflock]

I'll speculate that prolonged tissue and plasma protein residues, a narrow index of safety, accumulation in milk, and the fact that HC developed resistance to it in a relatively short period of time despite the efforts by the Ausies to implement strategies to avoid it are some of the reasons.

[Richard Ehrhardt]

Mark

Those sound like logical reasons but unfortunately I am skeptical that those are the reasons. The parasitologists I have contacted feel it is really just a matter of the cost of introducing this product (or any) to the USA being are too great to be recouped through sales as the USA market is too small.

It is frustrating to understand that there are products out there that could be of great help in extending the usefullness of our current products but they are unlikely to be introduced here due to the cost and not because of lack of efficacy or safety concerns.

Of course it is very important to educate producers on how to minimize product use and use products in a manner to slow the rate of chemical resistance. We cannot just introduce new products without education but it is clear to me that our industry is suffering from limited chemical classes to control parasites.

[Darroll Grant]

Consider how many years it took to get approval for CIDRs in the US while the cattle sized ones were available for some time.

[Muleflock]

The parasitologists I have contacted feel it is really just a matter of the cost of introducing this product (or any) to the USA being are too great to be recouped through sales as the USA market is too small.

Hi Richard-

I agree the lack of projected profitability envisioned by many pharmaceutical companies is a major stumbling block when it comes to introducing a product into our sheep industry compared to that of others. But it's not just because we lack the numbers. Introducing a new and novel product means overcoming the cost to gain FDA approval. Which in turn means overcoming the hurdles necessary for compounds with prolonged tissue residues and some of the other things mentioned. I don't think you can separate the two. It's a significant part of the equation, and when those two factors combined show red ink time and time again at board meetings, I suspect major pharmaceutical companies like to mention the size, (or lack of), the market and leave the political wrangling out. In the greater scheme of things, It's easier for them to deal with the negative PR from our sheep industry than it is to butt heads with an agency that can make their life miserable across the board if it wants.

It's frustrating to me that our approval process seems to be so expensive and stringent compared to other countries, yet we allow the importation of competitive products produced with the use of compounds and biologicals, (vaccines), approved under standards we wouldn't allow. Granted, when sheep is number two on the GDP list, you're bound to turn more heads when it comes to an industries ability to navigate regulatory legislation. One just has to look at the recent decision to reduce domestic sheep grazing on the Payette National Forest some 70 percent because of the falsely contrived notion that it's going to prevent exposure of native Bighorn sheep to Pasteurella pneumonia to see what the sheep industry in this country is up against.